My understanding is that any auto collision where alcohol is present is de facto automatically considered to be caused by alcohol. NHTSA and NTSB have exercised almost all of their regulatory remit over the years and have literally run out of regulations to impose, despite being under pressure to justify their continued existence and budget. Since drunk driving has been the subject of a moral panic for decades and intoxication at some level has been shown to cause crashes, the path of least resistance is to experiment with lowering acceptable blood alcohol levels. Deaths will probably continue to decrease for many reasons, and perhaps even total accidents, and the new limit will be declared not only successful but necessary without demonstrating any causation.

The overwhelming majority of "alcohol related" fatalities involve a driver over the old limit, and we can safely presume that proportion is even higher since the rate was lowered from there.

There's really no evidence that any inability to further reduce alcohol-impaired road fatalities is because the current standards are insufficiently strict.

This is a good example though of how an issue becomes enough of a moral outrage, that it becomes very easy to prey on people's emotions and implement policies in defiance of any reason. After all, what politician wants to be perceived as soft on drunk drivers?

What the contention here?Legal BAC levels shouldn't go lower for X reason?Lowering the legal BAC will have no effect on accidents due to drunk driving?

.劉煒's question is an interesting one, although I'm not sure how lowering or raising the BAC adds any increased enforcement costs per se. It would be helpful to know what "VSL" and "economic drag" are really meant to mean, however.

1. It should be established exactly how severe real-world impairment is at that level across a range of body types, in comparison with socially acceptible distractions like the radio, kids, the stress of being late, etc. Only then should policy be made, and policy makers must be open to a change in the limit in either direction.

2. The severity of the punishment should be an increasing function of drunkness, not constant for everyone over the limit.

I could see this being significantly more difficult to enact, compared to the 1.0 and 0.8 limits enacted earlier. For starters, it's within the past decade that 0.8 was pushed as the new standard. With it so fresh in the minds of most drivers, I think people will see this as a drive to just get this down to a 0.0 standard, which isn't exactly practical. The jump to 0.5 is also pretty huge. So the average guy will go from being "drunk" after 4 drinks in an hour to just 2 drinks in an hour. I imagine a LOT of people think 2 drinks in an hour is pretty reasonable, whereas 4 drinks in an hour is definitely leaning more towards "drunk".

And then, yeah, the law of diminished returns is definitely kicking in. Frankly, 500-800 lives saved in the entire country over a year seems like not that much, considering how significant of a reduction in BAC we're talking. At that point, I start wondering if there's more bang for the buck in doing other things like tougher restrictions on repeat offenders. My state has been considering stricter laws after a series of fatalities this year involving people who had multiple prior arrests. They definitely were VERY drunk. So lowering the BAC level would have had zero effect on them, compared to more restrictions on repeat offenders.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty hesitant to drive even after one beer. If I'm feeling anything at all as a result of the alcohol, someone else drives. This is easy to do, and better safe than sorry.

Dropping the level to .05 is based on some very flawed tests regarding impairment levels, some very presumptive and inaccurate correlations as to what constitutes "alcohol-related" crashes, and *completely* ignores that vast number of folks who routinely drive at these levels with no discernible deviation from normal driving behaviors. It's prohibitionist rhetoric, and has no place in any logical discussion surrounding reduction of actual alcohol-induced fatalities or property damage.

Unfortunately, the Good Ship Logical Discussion sailed long ago when it comes to anything DUI related.

1. It should be established exactly how severe real-world impairment is at that level across a range of body types, in comparison with socially acceptible distractions like the radio, kids, the stress of being late, etc. Only then should policy be made, and policy makers must be open to a change in the limit in either direction.

Why should those be dependent on each other? Measuring distraction is difference for BAC versus the radio, etc, as would be the detection mechanism. We don't have any really useful field cognition impairment tests that would be generalizable.

While there is partial evidence of impairment at 0.02% BAC, a major conclusion of this study is that by 0.04% BAC, all measures of impairment that are statistically significant are in the direction of degraded performance. The data provides no evidence of a BAC below which impairment does not occur. Rather, there was evidence of significant impairment throughout the BAC range of 0.02% to 0.10%, with increasing percentage of subjects impaired and increasing magnitude of impairment at higher BACs. These conclusions, which are consistent with findings from the analysis of crash data (Allsop, 1966; Hurst, 1973; Zador et al., in press), are directly relevant to the issue of BAC limits for driving. Note that these results were obtained with subjects whose BACs were declining from 0.10% (or 0.08%) to zero. Greater impairment would be expected from drivers during alcohol consumption and absorption when BACs are rising.

Further, while I'm sympathetic that different people have different limits, it's going to be quite hard to really test for that. There are many factors beyond body type that interact with alcohol, from metabolism to allergies. Furthermore, alcohol interacts with a host of medicine and other substances that may increase impairment beyond what may be shown in a BAC reading. Again, this is complicated by other personal body chemistry issues.

Picking a BAC limit and saying "that's out line" is the most practical way to enforce something like this until technology figures out how to test multiple factors in the field with some degree of accuracy.

Quote:

2. The severity of the punishment should be an increasing function of drunkness, not constant for everyone over the limit.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty hesitant to drive even after one beer. If I'm feeling anything at all as a result of the alcohol, someone else drives. This is easy to do, and better safe than sorry.

Yeah, I'm a real asshole about driving with any alcohol in my system or in that of someone driving in a car I'm in. Fuck that.

How about "Pushing for a lower BAC level leads to more incarcerations which continues to feed the prison industrial complex, who push for the change on the back of flimsy science and appeal to emotion rather than hard data, because if enacted it means tens of millions of more $$ funneled into their pockets from the governments coffers by locking up more and more nonviolent offenders?"

I'm not saying I particularly believe that, but it's getting increasingly hard to divorce the political and economic power of the prison industry from any change in policy related to "public health and safety" these days.

How about "Pushing for a lower BAC level leads to more incarcerations which continues to feed the prison industrial complex, who push for the change on the back of flimsy science and appeal to emotion rather than hard data, because if enacted it means tens of millions of more $$ funneled into their pockets from the governments coffers by locking up more and more nonviolent offenders?"

I'm not saying I particularly believe that, but it's getting increasingly hard to divorce the political and economic power of the prison industry from any change in policy related to "public health and safety" these days.

The hard data indicates people are generally impaired with less than most states' legal BAC level.

Still, outside of alcohol test checkpoints, people aren't going to get caught until they attract the attention of police by their driving behavior. The enforcement cost difference would not seem to be that different to me.

The prison industrial complex has much more ripe targets to enrich themselves then by fucking around with BAC levels.

And then, yeah, the law of diminished returns is definitely kicking in. Frankly, 500-800 lives saved in the entire country over a year seems like not that much, considering how significant of a reduction in BAC we're talking. At that point, I start wondering if there's more bang for the buck in doing other things like tougher restrictions on repeat offenders. My state has been considering stricter laws after a series of fatalities this year involving people who had multiple prior arrests. They definitely were VERY drunk. So lowering the BAC level would have had zero effect on them, compared to more restrictions on repeat offenders.

States should modify whatever laws, jury instructions, prosecution guidelines, etc. that are necessary to start trying these guys for depraved indifference murder (15 to life) when they kill someone and depraved indifference assault (8.5 to 25) when they cause serious physical injury.

Value of a statistical life, a standard measure used in environmental science when analysing policies versus costs.

Thanks for that. I didn't think of that particular meaning in this context.

Quote:

Economic drag in this case would be the social costs of the new policy, including lost man hours, costs of enforcement, and second and higher order effects.

This is assuming that their view that 800 statistical lives are saved is correct, of course.

I have a hard time seeing any additional enforcement costs. If one were so inclined to try to figure this out, the 800 lives/year VSL wouldn't be the only possible savings. If this is actually a deterrent, then it implicitly would deter some amount of non-fatal accidents. Those accidents have property value, the social cost of enforcement, any lost wages due to injury, etc.

How about "Pushing for a lower BAC level leads to more incarcerations which continues to feed the prison industrial complex, who push for the change on the back of flimsy science and appeal to emotion rather than hard data, because if enacted it means tens of millions of more $$ funneled into their pockets from the governments coffers by locking up more and more nonviolent offenders?"

I'm not saying I particularly believe that, but it's getting increasingly hard to divorce the political and economic power of the prison industry from any change in policy related to "public health and safety" these days.

As a side note, but entirely on point with the above post, we really, really need to ban private prisons, and take all currently private prisons back to being publicly run.

Why should those be dependent on each other? Measuring distraction is difference for BAC versus the radio, etc, as would be the detection mechanism. We don't have any really useful field cognition impairment tests that would be generalizable.

What matters is the risk one puts others at, not whether it comes from distraction or chemical alteration of the brain. Thus there should be a consistent policy across causes of risk to avoid moral panic concentrated on one cause of risk. Similarly, I would expect that terrorism prevention programs be subject to the same cost/benefit analysis as other public safety programs.

I didn't say otherwise. Impairment isn't the problem; putting others at non-negligible risk is, and it takes sufficient impairment to cross that threshold.

Quote:

Further, while I'm sympathetic that different people have different limits, it's going to be quite hard to really test for that. There are many factors beyond body type that interact with alcohol, from metabolism to allergies. Furthermore, alcohol interacts with a host of medicine and other substances that may increase impairment beyond what may be shown in a BAC reading. Again, this is complicated by other personal body chemistry issues.

Picking a BAC limit and saying "that's out line" is the most practical way to enforce something like this until technology figures out how to test multiple factors in the field with some degree of accuracy.

Right, and I find that simplification acceptable for now and didn't say otherwise. But when choosing a BAC limit, one should choose it so that a sufficient fraction of the population is sufficiently impaired at that level. That's where people's different levels of impairment at a certain BAC comes into play.

Quote:

How do you measure "drunkness"?

If we're using BAC to set a limit, we might as well use BAC to measure level of drunkenness. Just as speeding fines are typically proportional to amount over the limit, so could drunk driving punishments.

Why should those be dependent on each other? Measuring distraction is difference for BAC versus the radio, etc, as would be the detection mechanism. We don't have any really useful field cognition impairment tests that would be generalizable.

What matters is the risk one puts others at, not whether it comes from distraction or chemical alteration of the brain. Thus there should be a consistent policy across causes of risk to avoid moral panic concentrated on one cause of risk. Similarly, I would expect that terrorism prevention programs be subject to the same cost/benefit analysis as other public safety programs.

Cognitive impairment while operating machinery increases risk. Are you arguing that's not the case?

What cost difference in there in changing the legal BAC? The test is the same.

As an aside, there has been plenty of "panic' over banning texting and usage of personal digital devices while driving to somewhat negligible effects on incidents. This is despite repeated studies showing how usage of these also cause significant cognitive impairment.

I didn't say otherwise. Impairment isn't the problem; putting others at non-negligible risk is, and it takes sufficient impairment to cross that threshold.

Evidence of where that threshold should lie in your estimation?

Quote:

Quote:

Further, while I'm sympathetic that different people have different limits, it's going to be quite hard to really test for that. There are many factors beyond body type that interact with alcohol, from metabolism to allergies. Furthermore, alcohol interacts with a host of medicine and other substances that may increase impairment beyond what may be shown in a BAC reading. Again, this is complicated by other personal body chemistry issues.

Picking a BAC limit and saying "that's out line" is the most practical way to enforce something like this until technology figures out how to test multiple factors in the field with some degree of accuracy.

Right, and I find that simplification acceptable for now and didn't say otherwise. But when choosing a BAC limit, one should choose it so that a sufficient fraction of the population is sufficiently impaired at that level. That's where people's different levels of impairment at a certain BAC comes into play.

1) They have, in repeated studies, one of which I've linked. If you believe that not to be these, feel free to enlighten us.

2) Given how alcohol interacts with other factors and substances, I'm fairly comfortable erring on the low side precisely because BAC doesn't tell the whole story even if accounting for normal body chemistry. We aren't erring on the low side, though, in the vast majority of states.

Quote:

Quote:

How do you measure "drunkness"?

If we're using BAC to set a limit, we might as well use BAC to measure level of drunkenness. Just as speeding fines are typically proportional to amount over the limit, so could drunk driving punishments.

2. The severity of the punishment should be an increasing function of drunkness, not constant for everyone over the limit.

How do you measure "drunkness"?

Why not BAC? Assuming equal circumstances - i.e., no fatalities/damage - I'd be far more willing to give someone driving at 0.08 the benefit of the doubt than someone driving at 0.25. Neither is OK but the latter is a whole different degree of reckless. If the low end drops even more to 0.05 I think it's necessary to distinguish the guy who accidentally broke the law and the guy who blatantly disregarded it.

Marge: Homer, you cannot miss Lisa's big day. And you have to come sober!Homer: American sober or Irish sober?Marge: .08 sober!Homer: .15.Marge: .09!Homer: .10 with a stomach full of bread. My final offer.Marge (groans): Deal.

If we were to lock up every black man between 15 and 35 years old, we'd prevent a lot of crime in this country. But we don't do it. Why? Because predicting criminal behavior based solely on a person's skin color - no matter how accurate it may be - is considered improper.

So why is it legitimate to arrest and incarcerate people who have committed no act harmful to another based solely on the level of certain chemicals in their blood?

The primary impairment from alcohol (or any drug) with regards to your driving is judgement. No matter how drunk an 18-year-old gets, they'll still have physical reactions comparable or superior to an 80-year-old. But you know what? That 80-year-old could be three sheets to the wind and would still have better judgement than the 18-year-old does sober.

So why would we make merely driving intoxicated illegal, rather than an additional penalty for already operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner?

What cost difference in there in changing the legal BAC? The test is the same.

Additional court load, lost productivity for those convicted (or even who successfully defend), additional jail time, the push for interlocks, additional fines, etc.

Quote:

As an aside, there has been plenty of "panic' over banning texting and usage of personal digital devices while driving to somewhat negligible effects on incidents. This is despite repeated studies showing how usage of these also cause significant cognitive impairment.

The main difference is the VAST disparity in punishments in terms of fines and other punishment for equivalent levels of distraction.

The propagandized demonization of even low levels of BAC has over-taken reasonable discourse, as has the definition of "alcohol-related accidents."

What cost difference in there in changing the legal BAC? The test is the same.

Additional court load, lost productivity for those convicted (or even who successfully defend), additional jail time, the push for interlocks, additional fines, etc.

Quote:

As an aside, there has been plenty of "panic' over banning texting and usage of personal digital devices while driving to somewhat negligible effects on incidents. This is despite repeated studies showing how usage of these also cause significant cognitive impairment.

The main difference is the VAST disparity in punishments in terms of fines and other punishment for equivalent levels of distraction.

The propagandized demonization of even low levels of BAC has over-taken reasonable discourse, as has the definition of "alcohol-related accidents."

Why don't you read the study I linked, or find your own, before parroting this conspiracy crap.

If we were to lock up every black man between 15 and 35 years old, we'd prevent a lot of crime in this country. But we don't do it. Why? Because predicting criminal behavior based solely on a person's skin color - no matter how accurate it may be - is considered improper.

So why is it legitimate to arrest and incarcerate people who have committed no act harmful to another based solely on the level of certain chemicals in their blood?

Because they are engaging in known risky behavior that endangers people other than themselves.

As right-wingers like to say, you don't need a car license on your own land, so feel free to drink and drive there. Stay the fuck off the public roads.

Quote:

So why would we make merely driving intoxicated illegal, rather than an additional penalty for already operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner?

Why don't you read the study I linked, or find your own, before parroting this conspiracy crap.

I'm not parroting any sort of conspiracy crap...do you deny that there is a vast difference in the criminal remedies available for someone driving with a .08 versus someone driving while texting? You just acknowledged that there are similar cognitive impairments...

Why don't you read the study I linked, or find your own, before parroting this conspiracy crap.

I'm not parroting any sort of conspiracy crap...do you deny that there is a vast difference in the criminal remedies available for someone driving with a .08 versus someone driving while texting? You just acknowledged that there are similar cognitive impairments...

If there are, then they should be corrected. I have no problem with that. Talk to your state about it.

The issues of alcohol affecting impairment, particularly vis a vis vehicles, has had many decades to settle into the public consciousness. Still, we have truthers on the matter.

Texting and smartphones have maybe a decade or so and a lot of truthers.

The last thread I participated in here on the subject was instructive.

I didn't say otherwise. Impairment isn't the problem; putting others at non-negligible risk is, and it takes sufficient impairment to cross that threshold.

Quote:

Evidence of where that threshold should lie in your estimation?

That's a valid question. I'd like to see the details of how the study determined "impairment". If we're talking "can't keep the car in a straight line" level, then yes, that's pretty impaired. A reaction time that is a half-second slower than when completely sober, which lines up with the impairment of getting an hour less sleep a night (an example I just made up), I would be less concerned with it. There are plenty of ways to be impaired in a car. I mean, how supportive of a 0.5 standard would you be if studies showed that the level of impairment for most people equaled that of having your radio on?

If there are, then they should be corrected. I have no problem with that. Talk to your state about it.

There is no forum available for me to do so, other than representatives and whatnot, and they won't touch the issue with a ten-foot pole. This is precisely my point. The BAC/DUI issue has been so thoroughly demonized and painted with strong emotional colors, it's impossible to have reasonable discussion around it in the political landscape.

Quote:

The issues of alcohol affecting impairment, particularly vis a vis vehicles, has had many decades to settle into the public consciousness. Still, we have truthers on the matter.

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by "BAC truther"...I maintain that you can demonstrate 'impairment' at just about any measurable level, depending on the subject, their physical condition, other ingestibles, etc. I freely admit there is a correlation between increasing BACs and increased impairment. However, BAC alone is not the sole arbiter of same...and pushing it ever lower as a criminal boundary is simply pushing more folks who were otherwise driving normally into an life-altering position. Different people have different tolerances, different baseline driving behaviors and cognitive levels, different exposure to dangerous external conditions, etc.

Other than the above, your statement reflects exactly what I'm getting at. The fact that it has had "many decades to settle into the public consciousness" shouldn't over-ride logical discourse on the matter.

Quote:

Texting and smartphones have maybe a decade or so and a lot of truthers.

I'm under the working assumption that by "truthers" you intend to mean "deniers." Correct? If so, I do agree on the latter comment. We've seen it both here and in the lounge.

Cognitive impairment while operating machinery increases risk. Are you arguing that's not the case?

No (I'm not arguing that).

Quote:

What cost difference in there in changing the legal BAC? The test is the same.

Cost only applies in the analogy. The point of the analogy is that it's good to be consistent.

Quote:

As an aside, there has been plenty of "panic' over banning texting and usage of personal digital devices while driving to somewhat negligible effects on incidents. This is despite repeated studies showing how usage of these also cause significant cognitive impairment.

Panic is always bad when making policy; I'm not supporting it in other areas.

Quote:

Evidence of where that threshold should lie in your estimation?

Not sure, and that's a matter of philosophy.

Quote:

1) They have, in repeated studies, one of which I've linked. If you believe that not to be these, feel free to enlighten us.

I was merely responding to your point about not wanting to take into account different people's tolerances. If the studies do take that into account, good.

Quote:

2) Given how alcohol interacts with other factors and substances, I'm fairly comfortable erring on the low side precisely because BAC doesn't tell the whole story even if accounting for normal body chemistry. We aren't erring on the low side, though, in the vast majority of states.

I'd rather err on the high side. I suppose whether to err on the side of safety or freedom when one is uncertain about the risk is a matter of philosophy.

Do you have links to any other studies with a different methodology? The issue I can see with the linked study is that it only measures impairment as BAC drops from a peak of .10 or .08. Given how the impairment is roughly flat for .10 to .06 before it starts to significantly drop off in seven of nine tests, it's possible that extending the test to initial BACs of .06 and .04 would show significantly different results at a BAC of .04.

Of course, this doesn't help you write laws if your primary tool is a BAC measurement, since that won't show the difference between "just peaked at .05" and "peaked at .10 a while ago, now at .05".

If there are, then they should be corrected. I have no problem with that. Talk to your state about it.

There is no forum available for me to do so, other than representatives and whatnot, and they won't touch the issue with a ten-foot pole. This is precisely my point. The BAC/DUI issue has been so thoroughly demonized and painted with strong emotional colors, it's impossible to have reasonable discussion around it in the political landscape. ...Perhaps you should explain what you mean by "BAC truther"...I maintain that you can demonstrate 'impairment' at just about any measurable level, depending on the subject, their physical condition, other ingestibles, etc. I freely admit there is a correlation between increasing BACs and increased impairment. However, BAC alone is not the sole arbiter of same...and pushing it ever lower as a criminal boundary is simply pushing more folks who were otherwise driving normally into an life-altering position. Different people have different tolerances, different baseline driving behaviors and cognitive levels, different exposure to dangerous external conditions, etc.

We can't measure individualized tolerances to any great effect in the field and people are shit at estimating their own tolerances. The data indicates impairment generally at very low levels. Until we have technology or measures to accurately incorporate the various factors, I'd rather be mitigated against self-centered assholes who think they are excellent drivers, excellent drivers when they put other people at risk.

Quote:

Other than the above, your statement reflects exactly what I'm getting at. The fact that it has had "many decades to settle into the public consciousness" shouldn't over-ride logical discourse on the matter.

Cognitive impairment while operating machinery increases risk. Are you arguing that's not the case?

No (I'm not arguing that).

Quote:

What cost difference in there in changing the legal BAC? The test is the same.

Cost only applies in the analogy. The point of the analogy is that it's good to be consistent.

I agree with consistency generally, but because random people think differently about different factors is no reason not to move forward on one factor.

Handwaving to the contrary, we know pretty well how alcohol affects cognition and happen to be able to measure the presence of alcohol pretty well in a practical situation. I'm all for applying the same level of scrutiny to, say, cell phone use. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve attention, far from it.

Quote:

I'd rather err on the high side. I suppose whether to err on the side of safety or freedom when one is uncertain about the risk is a matter of philosophy.

We are pretty certain of the risks. We also know that risk of often exacerbated by practically unknowable factors (other meds,allergies, etc.).

Ignoring your continual petty little jabs (squawking?), it IS logical discourse when I'm suggesting we need to rationalize punishments if we plan on lowering the threshold for said punishment. Driving while tired is inherently dangerous, and puts just as many other people at risk as certain BACs, but the punishments for same are so drastically different than you're simply FoS or incredibly disingenuous if you brush it aside as a non-issue.

Ignoring your continual petty little jabs (squawking?), it IS logical discourse when I'm suggesting we need to rationalize punishments if we plan on lowering the threshold for said punishment.

That's logical.

Quote:

Driving while tired is inherently dangerous, and puts just as many other people at risk as certain BACs, but the punishments for same are so drastically different than you're simply FoS or incredibly disingenuous if you brush it aside as a non-issue.

That's logical.

The squawking is stuff like this:

Quote:

Dropping the level to .05 is based on some very flawed tests regarding impairment levels, some very presumptive and inaccurate correlations as to what constitutes "alcohol-related" crashes, and *completely* ignores that vast number of folks who routinely drive at these levels with no discernible deviation from normal driving behaviors.

...The propagandized demonization of even low levels of BAC has over-taken reasonable discourse, as has the definition of "alcohol-related accidents."...This is precisely my point. The BAC/DUI issue has been so thoroughly demonized and painted with strong emotional colors, it's impossible to have reasonable discussion around it in the political landscape.

(I mean, are people DUI *not* supposed to be treated like irresponsible criminals?)

That's all pretty much nonsense. One can quite clearly believe that laws, and even social norms, regarding other types of impaired driving are not commensurate with drunk driving while not having to fucking defend drunk drivers for some asinine reason.

Ignoring your continual petty little jabs (squawking?), it IS logical discourse when I'm suggesting we need to rationalize punishments if we plan on lowering the threshold for said punishment. Driving while tired is inherently dangerous, and puts just as many other people at risk as certain BACs, but the punishments for same are so drastically different than you're simply FoS or incredibly disingenuous if you brush it aside as a non-issue.

The mens rea *can* be significantly different. Generally the decision to drink and drive is an explicit one. Whereas the state of being tired is generally not the result of an explicit decision, nor entirely predictable, nor entirely recognizable.

Texting while driving on the other hand fits the mold of negligence / recklessness / depraved indifference particularly well.

(I mean, are people DUI *not* supposed to be treated like irresponsible criminals?)

They are if they are driving perfectly fine, yet get pulled over for, say, an expired tag and end up in jail.

If you are cognitively impaired, the chance of you going to fuck something up is much higher than the baseline. Being proactive if they happen to detect a BAC is essentially the only way to deal with it, since it's quite ineffective to only deal with it after your BAC has caused an accident.

Quote:

And the hyperbole of calling everyone with any measurable BAC a 'drunk driver' is the same sort of BS I'm calling out.